Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I wish they had the "amount of time speaking" ticker on the bottom, like CNN did with the Obama-Romney debates.
If I got 5 minutes out of 30 in each appearance, it was a lot.

I was on during a trial of someone I covered extensively for eight years; I had even been at "the scene of the later crime" several times prior. Was never once asked a question, iirc, that was relevant to those potential insights.

For me (and I don't speak for anyone else and am not a Libertarian) the state and corporations are both my allies and my enemies. I want both to be playing off each other as much as possible and both limited when not needed. I object to both the Libertarian Government = Evil, Corporations/Private Sector = Good and to the Communist Government = Good, Corporations/Private Sector = Evil (both philosophies simplified for arguments sake, not intended to be a true description of either ideology).

Most Liberals think Corporations both evil and good, and Government evil and good. When they team up it is pretty close to pure evil though. And when either runs amok it is very bad as well.

This demonstrates not only a misunderstanding of libertarian thought, but also a misunderstanding of your own position. Libertarians as a rule do not worship corporate power; it's typically preferable to government power because corporations can't send armed men to kill you, but "better than" does not necessarily equate to approval.

The bigger issue is the failure to recognize that the modern liberal welfare/regulatory state is primarily responsible for the huge increase in corporate power and influence. Increasing the size and power of government creates incentives for corporations to gain access to that government for welfare handouts, lucrative contracts and regulatory buy-in. Politicians get bought, campaign contributions get massive, lobbyists become increasingly important. Regulation creates barriers to entry for potential competition and results in regulatory capture, which creates even more corporate power as they write the regulations (and tax code) that governs them.

A reasonable person could believe that having a generous welfare state is of paramount importance and living with massive corporate power is a necessary evil to achieve that goal. It's not reasonable to believe that corporate power is a problem that must be reigned in with a bigger, more powerful government. That's simply fighting fire with gasoline.

I voted about an hour ago. There were three people waiting (including me) and they happened to be in the 2nd half of the alphabet. I voted all democratic which really doesn't matter as my district is very republican and the state is very democratic. I initially tried to get an email ballot but that proved impossible - the county clerk wasn't able to handle the number of requests. So I drove back from Philly (where I was staying with a friend due to not having power but had to leave when I realized I am allergic to cats). There was someone who tried to vote from outside the district because all of the polling places in his town were closed and supposedly nj residents were allowed to vote provisionally at any nj polling place. The poll workers were utterly confused on the rule.

If I want to drive, from say, New York to Indiana (say I am fleeing a hurricane). I am not a citizen or resident of any state that I enter. I have to pay several tolls to use interstate highway systems. Is this legitimate fee-for-service? I never agreed, implicitly or explicitly that either local, state, or federal government could charge me to use "it's" road (let alone negotiate the price)

Is it voluntary or unvoluntary of me to pay the toll? Does it matter if there is an alternate route (presumably of some high level of cost and inconvenience). Is it even theoretically possible to drive from Queens to New Jersey without a toll? Most turnpikes probably have some sort of free service road in parallel you could theoretically use.

I know in the Bay Area, you *can* drive from say, San Francisco to Marin "the long way 'round" to avoid bridge tolls, but of course you would burn way more than the bridge toll in gas.

Does it matter if the bridge is privately owned, instead of a government?

The thing about the water breaking brings me to this quick question: If life begins at conception, shouldn't you technically be able to vote at age 17 and 3 and 1/2 months? And shouldn't you be able to buy a beer at 20 years and 3 months?

The thing about the water breaking brings me to this quick question: If life begins at conception, shouldn't you technically be able to vote at age 17 and 3 and 1/2 months? And shouldn't you be able to buy a beer at 20 years and 3 months?

Hee. As primitive as it is, American society has managed to move past the worst (i.e. the bulk) of libertariansim. It's on the order of turning 22 or 23 and realizing other people, GASP, are exactly as real as you are.

EDIT: Fixed.

If only :)

Nice sleight of hand, to refer generically to "the left" in the first part (I assume by "wins" you meant "loses"), but limit the second part to "the saner" members of the right (as if there won't be significant numbers on the right who freak out at an Obama reelection).

I have a couple of friends in the midwest and west who will be absolutely certain that, should he win, Obama stole the election. Nothing factual matters in the least to them.

I was just clearing old copies of the Tribune out of the staff break room and came across a story from a few weeks ago about a couple of young women getting arrested for shooting heroin behind the Dairy Queen in Wilmette, IL. I think this is instructive. No matter how bad things get, most of us will never shoot up behind the Dairy Queen in Wilmette.

The bigger issue is the failure to recognize that the modern liberal welfare/regulatory state is primarily responsible for the huge increase in corporate power and influence.

What increase? Corporate power and influence was at an apogee in the late 19th century, when the modern liberal/welfare regulatory state did not exist. Business interests were also massively powerful in Britain after the Industrial Revolution, Medieval Flanders, and Renaissance Venice. In none of those cases do I see liberalism mucking things up behind the scenes. What they have in common is wealth based largely on mercantile activity rather than land ownership. But the wealthy have always had more power, more so in the past than today.

Hee. As primitive as it is, American society has managed to move past the worst (i.e. the bulk) of libertariansim. It's on the order of turning 22 or 23 and realizing other people, GASP, are exactly as real as you are.

Children and domestic animals are always interfering with others. It takes an advanced adult to leave others alone.(*) The oft-cited idea that a libertarian bent is something you "grow out of" is laughable.

(*) Because, among other reasons, the benefits to the person doing it are more subtle and less immediate.

Another question: If corporations are people, if LexCorp- which at some points has basically had "kill Superman" as it's business plan, were to kill somebody in an attempt to murder Superman, could the entire corporation be charged with manslaughter?

No matter how bad things get, most of us will never shoot up behind the Dairy Queen in Wilmette.

My son and I were having this conversation one time. You know, those days when you're feeling down and frustrated and upset, nothing's going your way, you just have to remind yourself that somewhere, somebody has it worse than you.

Which is always true for almost everyone in the world. Almost everyone. But what if you were that one guy, feeling down and frustrated and upset, nothing's going your way, and -- guess what: nobody, anywhere, has it worse than you. You are in fact the most miserable, wretched, luckless human being on the planet.

* I need some food, so I take out a bank loan.
* I need some food, so I take a dangerous job that will hurt my health.
* I need a place to sleep, so I rent a bed in a dirty flophouse.

* I need a place to sleep, so I buy property of which the ultimate title is held by the government. The government in turn requires me to pay property taxes.

Libertarians see the first three as perfectly legitimate arrangements, while the fourth is illegitimate and coercive. I don't see why.

Where did the boldfaced part come from? It's weird how liberals have accepted the notions of feudalism but have just replaced a monarch with an elected government.

But that having been said, someone like Dan would kind of accept that fourth one; he'd quibble with the phrasing but he'd accept the idea of property taxes. But of course our government doesn't merely require us to pay property taxes in exchange for owning government property; it requires us to pay income taxes, sales taxes, licensing taxes, excise taxes, death taxes... all "in exchange for" nothing more than being alive.

The problem with Libertarianism is that it forgets the humanity is full of d-bags who will gladly let the handicapped, the unlucky and the discriminated-against rot.

They also insist on cleverly rigging the system so that those with money and access to the legal system have significantly more functional power than those with excellent jiu-jitsu and a desire to slap selfish jerks,

A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote
people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

A FASCIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. They are mad. They die. Pass the shepherd's pie, please.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship both of them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported on them.

AN ISRAELI CORPORATION: There are these two Jewish cows, right? They open a milk factory, an ice cream store, and then sell the movie rights. They send their calves to Harvard to become doctors. So, who needs people?

AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute.

Which is always true for almost everyone in the world. Almost everyone. But what if you were that one guy, feeling down and frustrated and upset, nothing's going your way, and -- guess what: nobody, anywhere, has it worse than you. You are in fact the most miserable, wretched, luckless human being on the planet.

Which election was effed up by the exit polling? Was it in 2000 that liberals got moist over the exit polling that showed the Goreacle to be freely in the lead? Or was it 2004 with the windsurfing Kerry.

Not sure if this has already been answered, but in 2000, for the first time in Florida, Cubans were separated from generic hispanics in the exit poll data. The analysts, not realizing this, saw hispanics (now minus the Cubans who generally vote Republican) going overwhelmingly for Gore, which caused them to prematurely call the state for Gore. The networks reported this, despite the polls still being open in the heavily Republican panhandle (another major goof), which depressed the vote there. There were numerous reports of people leaving the line after hearing that their vote didn't matter.

Sign me up for that. Obviously 103 is the most any of us can hope for, but it's still a sad day.

I voted in Howard County at around 3 pm. It took 20 minutes, and that was only because the door was locked, so I had to wait for someone to come out before I could get in. A couple of us asked one of the election officials about it, and she said "yeah, it's been like that all day--I don't know why." There's an interesting voter suppression technique. For the record, Obama, casinos, and gay marriage licenses.

I would have said America wasn't ready for it. And I don't think they were, because they're trying to drag him down now. I mean, the poor ######'s only just gotten rid of all that George Bush #### that he left, or is trying to. And he's being stonewalled by the ####### Congress all the time. I don't know how he's gotten anything done. They should be glad. I mean the alternative is Mitt Romney. Please, please don't vote for Mitt Romney. #### him. Repeal abortion law is the first thing he'll do. ####### monster.

I'd say that Lemmy's is likely the ONLY vote that Obama is likely to get from a well-known collector of Nazi memorabilia, but, of course, Lemmy's British.

Voting in small towns is awesome. I had to fill out an affidavit ballot because I was stupid to do it the right way.

I've been through a large group of elections, and this one is making me very very very uneasy, more than any other, I think. I'm not even sure why. I think it's because of this ####### poll thread and knowing more than I've ever known before prior to the election of what's already been forecast. The last one was sort of foregone, and I just wasn't as much all up on the internet for the prior to that.

Drudge might be doing a head fake. Earlier, it said "EXIT POLLS TIGHT," but with Ohio in the Obama column. Now it says "EXIT POLL BOOM FOR O," but Ohio has shifted down to the toss-up column.

Also, the exit polls have 60 percent of respondents naming the economy as their top issue, with just 25 percent saying they're better off than they were four years ago. There seems to be a large disconnect between those economic numbers and the "EXIT POLL BOOM FOR O" headline.

Drudge's headline is probably bad for Romney. If the exit polls in PA, NH, and NV have Obama up by so much that Drudge is calling them for Obama, it's at least one sign that Romney's failed to get the R/D split he needs.

Actually, only thing even slightly worth nothing so far is that Romney is running 8 ahead of Mourdock. Nate's final projection had Romney winning by 9, so that would suggest at least very early, that the Senate race will be close.

Drudge's headline is probably bad for Romney. If the exit polls in PA, NH, and NV have Obama up by so much that Drudge is calling them for Obama, it's at least one sign that Romney's failed to get the R/D split he needs.

I'll be the nth reason to say this:

IGNORE all exit polls until it's over- what exit polls are good for- is after the fact- telling you the demographics of who voted- adjusting the numbers on the fly to reflect actual turnout etc. is pretty impossible, the margin of error is like +/- 20% at this point

Now that I think about it, Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln is going to win this election.

As a Canadian, I have no idea what to think of that movie. Is this something new about him, or are we just going to get the Civil War years? If so, then (just like Titanic) everyone's gonna know how it ends...

Now that I think about it, Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln is going to win this election.

As a Canadian, I have no idea what to think of that movie. Is this something new about him, or are we just going to get the Civil War years? If so, then (just like Titanic) everyone's gonna know how it ends...

It's primarily focused on how he tried to get slavery totally gone, despite the fact that most people thought he was crazy because it would kill peace talks going on with the South at the time.

Also, Daniel Day-Lewis is an acting machine. He even has the voice right! Lots of people have written that Lincoln kind of had a folksy voice, but nobody has ever done it before in a movie!

Also, Daniel Day-Lewis is an acting machine. He even has the voice right! Lots of people have written that Lincoln kind of had a folksy voice, but nobody has ever done it before in a movie!

Yes, someone has: Henry Fonda in John Ford's Young Mr. Lincoln. You only have to compare Fonda with Canadian Raymond Massey in Abe Lincoln in Illinois, released about a year later. Massey had played Lincoln on the stage--someone waggishly said that Massey wouldn't be satisfied until he was assassinated.

3223: You could make the analogy work. After all, companies have been charged with manslaughter. Remember this?
Also, mergers are more like adoptions than marriages. One adopts the other or they share paternity of a newly created corporation.

But if corporations are people, consider the implications of same-sex marriage laws.
If SSM advocates are correct in stating constitutional rights were intended not for individuals, but for their relationships, then why then hold non-profit and for-profit corporations under unequal codes?

Here in New Jersey — where for many of us it is day eight without power (or, if you’re counting, day six since Governor Christie and President Obama congratulated each other on what a great job they’d done) — our starstruck governor has apparently gotten over his weepies at Bruce Springsteen’s finally deigning to acknowledge his existence. Christie took a brief time-out from gushing over the president’s very presidential parading to blast ”know nothing, disgruntled Romney staffers” for making “noise” about his allegedly declining to appear on Sunday at a Romney campaign rally in the Philadelphia suburbs (i.e., conveniently close to Trenton).

The comment section is great. My favorite: christie is nothing more than a sharia compliant big bag of wind.